Joeseph Stack's Suicide Letter

[Ikeren]

Evidence that you're wrong?

Canada (+the EU)---public healthcare. It's resoundingly obvious that private healthcare is more profitable (see: US insurance companies fighting tooth and nail to prevent public healthcare). If those with money had complete power, healthcare would be privatized in every nation with public healthcare.

In the US, Obama's health care reform. Admittedly, it didn't go so far as he wanted. But it did go somewhere; subsidizing those making poverty wages, expand eligibility for those with higher income, tax rebates to small businesses with healthcare, tax costs to employers without it, etc.

If people with money (in this case) drug companies (some of the righest corporations world wide) had all the power, why did they let this direct cut in their profits happen? Because they are nice (and benevolent)?


Also, I think there is a little bit of a misconception here about the burden of proof for alternative theory. People arguing the status quo have a much lower burden of proof, and while unfortunate, it's true: there is not much onus for a proponent of the status quo to prove his theory; because most people already believe it. On the other hand, the burden of proof for people supporting alternative theory is substantially higher; because its new material to more people. I don't necessarily think this is a good thing, but I am pretty sure it is a fact of coherence theories of knowledge that most of us follow.

Also, disproving negatives is substantially more difficult than proving positives (to the point that some say it is impossible). I can give examples where those with money aren't in control endlessly; and someone can always posit an extra idea on the negative proof; for example:
"Maybe the drug companies thought it would be more beneficial to long term profits."
I provide evidence that drug companies don't care about public perception.
"Maybe they changed their minds."
At which point, it is basically impossible to prove that a company has not changed their mind about public perception. It is also, however, difficult to prove that a company has positively changed their mind about public perception; which is a reason to doubt the hypothesis. So while I won't say "You can't prove a negative"; proving a negative is often far more difficult than proving a positive.

[Bannedfornoreason]

Corporations control our government.

Health insurance should not cover a skinned knee or a cavity in your tooth.

Health insurance should cover things that *are unexpected and a catastrophic* the type of thing that would be a total freak accident.

As it is now, the government controls the prices on everything by having this strong grip on every doctor in the country. Everyone pays way too much for something they don't need and often times people pay for tons of shit that they don't want.

If doctors had to compete with each other not only would you get better care, but it would be cheaper. The beauty of free market capitalism in the health field is that there's no such thing as a Walmart of healthcare. There is only one Dr. Richards or Dr. Brown.

Why do those who have power and money push for universal health care? Because your taxes will go to meaningless, crappy health care. None of your money will be tracked, and the bulk of it wont even be used on health care. They simply justify the taxes by saying "don't worry we got your back" Meanwhile they line their pockets and further invest in the destruction of your country.

When's the last time you died or had a catastrophic car accident? It's like buying life insurance at age 23.

[contactus]

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Evidence that you're wrong?

Canada (+the EU)---public healthcare. It's resoundingly obvious that private healthcare is more profitable (see: US insurance companies fighting tooth and nail to prevent public healthcare). If those with money had complete power, healthcare would be privatized in every nation with public healthcare.

In the US, Obama's health care reform. Admittedly, it didn't go so far as he wanted. But it did go somewhere; subsidizing those making poverty wages, expand eligibility for those with higher income, tax rebates to small businesses with healthcare, tax costs to employers without it, etc.

If people with money (in this case) drug companies (some of the righest corporations world wide) had all the power, why did they let this direct cut in their profits happen? Because they are nice (and benevolent)?


Also, I think there is a little bit of a misconception here about the burden of proof for alternative theory. People arguing the status quo have a much lower burden of proof, and while unfortunate, it's true: there is not much onus for a proponent of the status quo to prove his theory; because most people already believe it. On the other hand, the burden of proof for people supporting alternative theory is substantially higher; because its new material to more people. I don't necessarily think this is a good thing, but I am pretty sure it is a fact of coherence theories of knowledge that most of us follow.

Also, disproving negatives is substantially more difficult than proving positives (to the point that some say it is impossible). I can give examples where those with money aren't in control endlessly; and someone can always posit an extra idea on the negative proof; for example:
"Maybe the drug companies thought it would be more beneficial to long term profits."
I provide evidence that drug companies don't care about public perception.
"Maybe they changed their minds."
At which point, it is basically impossible to prove that a company has not changed their mind about public perception. It is also, however, difficult to prove that a company has positively changed their mind about public perception; which is a reason to doubt the hypothesis. So while I won't say "You can't prove a negative"; proving a negative is often far more difficult than proving a positive.

What the fuck makes you think the medical industry has the most money? Please use better keywords in your google searches.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The differences between a constitutional republic and a representative democracy are subtle enough for the purpose of discussing relative powers of banks to government, the distinction is not massive.

"Representative Democracy" is, by the very definitions of those two words, an oxymoron. It, along with "American Democracy" were invented to distract sheep from the real goal of replacing actual slavery with consumer slavery. It allows people to feel like they have power to cause real change, but in fact the only elements of the system malleable by citizens are those which are selected for us. For instance, try and vote us out of Iraq.

"Representative Democracy" and "American Democracy" are actually two euphamisms for our unique system of military/government/media/corporate authority over people. If you look at JUST the governmental aspect, it can be described most correctly as a "constitutional republic," but to thus ignore the other major power centers of this country (the bombs [military - this includes paramilitary organizations {e.g. Blackwater}], media influence, & money, respectively) would be sticking your head in the sand in a major way.

[IRS]

But Ikeren needs "Evidence"

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by IRS [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But Ikeren needs "Evidence"

Some truths are held to be self-evident.

[Ikeren]

If the hypothesis is that money has power, then the drug companies should have sufficient power, unless someone else with more money was pushing this policy through. Since the point of your argument is that people are more or less powerless, it can't be them. It is unlikely some other major financial power (banks, oil companies, who else? Gun, alcohol, media, cigarettes to an extent...) pushed this through.

So either you have: Some major financial power deliberately hitting drug companies (internal conflict) or you have politicians that aren't following the money = absolute power hypothesis.

And why do people keep getting banned? I'm confused.

[Ikeren]

Uh, if you're Contactus, I posted an argument that gave a reasonable explanation of you being wrong. It's near the top of this page (9).

Not sure what the stealing property thing, unless you're referring to the entire slaughtering the people native to this continent/spreading disease and then stealing their land, but not sure that's relevant. Perhaps you could explain what you mean a little more?

(And religion isn't the basis for rights any more; those are constitutional rights, not god given).

I am certain that the media is a large part of the problem. The media works to distract people from the major issues (read the censored project, or Noam Chomsky, or watch Manufacturing Consent), provides biased coverage and partial information to convince people to their side (Watch Outfoxed, or read any independent study of the media in the last 20 years). The way the media is being used these days is a major factor, if not the biggest factor, that is preventing realistic change in modern democratic nations.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Read all Noam Chomsky books, and watch Manufacturing Consent.

Fix'd.

I still think representative democracy is a an oxymoron. Look up the definition of the words. It literally cannot exist. I feel that it is euphamism at best, and blatant bullshit at worst, to say that America functions on anything CLOSE to a democracy. It is absolutely foolish. It is the equivalent of not being able to see (or refusing to see) a giant pink elephant in a round empty room.

[Sword]

You dumbasses don't even know the basis of the argument which comes down to life, liberty, and property.

Keep listening to your "world news tv" and reading your yahoo news articles on the internet. Every post you idiots make show how ignorant you are to the obvious facts.

Do yourself a favor go read the declaration of independance and the constitution word for word like a real american does and then tell me if "god and religion" should be excluded from politics. Once you dumbasses divide god from politics you just shat on all your rights.

The fact that you argue about what type of governmet is being used shows how fucking stupid you are! Talk about having your head in the sand.

And you didn't show me any "EVIDENCE" that i'm wrong. Just strayed from the point and rambled about the medical industry and how you don't like the media. So i'm still right untill any "EVIDENCE" comes up.